Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Downtime and new servers

This is topic Downtime and new servers in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002104

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-29-2003, 01:50 PM:

We had hard drive failures yesterday that pretty much killed the main server running this site. (Even the automated backup system crashed.) We lost 24 hours worth of posts to the forum due to this, but nothing else has been lost. Do note that there are bound to be a lot of broken links and things that don't display correctly that have not been caught yet. Please hold off for 48 hours before reporting broken links. The biggest offender of this will probably be the Picture Warehouse. If on Saturday you come across something that is not functioning properly or missing, please email me and direct me to it at Flix@film-tech.com

Also note, email will be spotty for the rest of the day and if you sent us email yesterday, it may be awhile before we can respond. It would be easiest if you sent an email yesterday to wait until tomorrow (Friday) and resend it if you have not received an answer.

Adam Martin has made us new index pages for our archives so they are much easier to read and navigate. Thanks Adam! [thumbsup]

We are now running off of a brand new server that I built just last night. This server will also allow us to automate more aspects of the site such as the sneak preview access and registering.

Everyone be sure to send Daryl O'Shea some nacho chips for his allnighter in helping to get everything configured! Had it not been for another endless night of assistance from him, the site would probably not be back online just yet.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-29-2003, 04:42 PM:

Welcome back from the dead! [Cool]

Please express our thanks to whomever covered your shift last night.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-29-2003, 04:54 PM:

Sorry to hear about the problem you were having with your server and the backup, Brad.

Thank you Daryl for for helping Brad get the site back on line.

For a moment, I thought the joke about Film Tech shutting down like my other favorite movie discussion site, DCinemazone was really happening but I am glad it was not. [Big Grin]

.

-Claude

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-29-2003, 04:56 PM:

Joke? What joke? I was serious.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 05-29-2003, 05:22 PM:

My webserver connection went down this week as well. I couldnt access the DNS. Turned out to be a router problem though, not a bad hard drive [thumbsup]

Josh

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 12:06 AM:

I think ALL Film-Tech members should email Brad, Adam, and Daryl multiple times asking them "If they know what the hell they are doing?" And I would expect for each of them to personally respond to each member's email. It seems like they have nothing better to do with their time.

It seems to me, as a card-carrying member, who is intelligent, witty, rich, good-looking, sexy, a well-known star of many motion pictures, and an innovator of many technical thing-a-ma-jigs, that myself AND all members should receive better service from this website.

I would be more sympathic if the reason was a tornado or an earthquake or some such thing, but lame excuses as a "hard-drive crash" or "updating servers" is nothing more than laughable! Just because Brad uses a 286 for a server, is no reason why we members should suffer.

I hope all of us members can expect a more professional attitude and treatment in the future.

>>> Phil

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-30-2003, 01:37 AM:

Fellow film-techers, don`t worry, I did not post anything during the last 24 hours. So you have not missed anything of value.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-30-2003, 02:14 AM:

Mercifully, the Phil Hill thread disappeared during this last upgrade... [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2003, 02:17 AM:

It was actually the Phil Hill thread that crashed the server. I just wasn't going to point it out. [Big Grin]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 02:21 AM:

You know Paul, I agree 100%! I thought it was degrading and just plain stupid! I get tired of defending my virtue.

It was some fantasy that that jerk Maartini posted. I think he is in love with me. BUT, he is NOT my type!

And Brad: What's REALLY funny about your post is that a couple of members emailed me accusing me of crashing your system! Hahahahahaha

>>> Phil

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-30-2003, 02:30 AM:

All this work and I missed out on the fun!

I think you should recreate 'this' thread and see if you can crash the server again.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-30-2003, 03:19 AM:

Should I say something about Scott thinking that Windows Servers are all mighty? Nah...

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-30-2003, 07:13 AM:

Phil:

Are you STILL defending that virtue?

[Big Grin]

Mine has been sentenced, and buried.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-30-2003, 09:04 AM:

To quote a .signature file that I've seen several people use in their Usenet posts: "Using Windows NT as a server because it's easy to use is like hiring Miss America to do your payroll because she's cute."

In the last three years (before Brad decided to switch to Windows yesterday), the old server experienced exactly zero non-hardware-related failures. Let's see if Windows can beat that reliability record (I have my doubts).

(Brad--sorry...had to)

[Smile]

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-30-2003, 09:47 AM:

It's great to know that I started the only thread to be obliterated from existence. I lost over 50 posts but only "God" and Phil know where they are now. Most likely the best 50 jokes I ever posted.

and Phil, I know you will find this extremely difficult to believe...But I only have one very special woman in my life.That is the way it will always be. [thumbsup]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2003, 11:58 AM:

Scott just called and told me that he loves Windows and was the one who told Brad he should switch. Then he hung up. Actually I think Scott works for Microsoft in the OS development team. [Smile]

By the way, the new server seems to be running the forum much more quickly.

Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 05-30-2003, 12:46 PM:

Out of curiosity, what was the old server? And what is it now? Cant say I've noticed the forum being any faster since, but my connection is pretty clogged anyway.

btw great job on getting it back up so quickly...I hardly experienced any withdrawl symptoms at all! [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2003, 01:57 PM:

The old server (Xenon) is going to be troubleshooted and repaired, then put back online as a backup...or if the foolish desire to use VI ever arises. [Razz]

The first Windows server on the line was called "Intermittent", mostly for Scott's giggles. However it has been far from intermittent in operation. It has been running nice and steadily without problems, so I'm not too worried about it. Plus there is no stupid VI with it. [Wink]

The current server that the forums are running on is called Brain. I chose that name for Steve. It is definitely running faster. [thumbsup]

Hey Scott, did I ever mention how annoying VI is? [Mad]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-30-2003, 04:13 PM:

Wait a second... we've got TWO NT servers now! When did that happen?

If Scott gets a server for giggles I want to have a Novell server! [Mad]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2003, 04:50 PM:

Nope, there are FOUR NT servers running. You've only pleasured two of them.

I thought you wanted a dts server?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-30-2003, 05:34 PM:

Brad needs to get himself some real computers. I am very tempted to send him a VAX (well, it's actually just a wimpy desktop VAXstation, but it's still a VAX) running NetBSD just so that his mind doesn't become too polluted with Win32 nonsense and crappy PC hardware. [puke]

Oh, and the speed increase is probably due to the fact that the new hardware is apparently singificantly faster than the old hardware and isn't likely to be the result of the OS change.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2003, 05:49 PM:

Uh huh, and this coming from the guy who said a 486 would be plenty? You're just jealous because you know how much Windows rocks! [evil]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 05:56 PM:

VAX's suck!

If you want a REAL computer, I know where there is an IBM 1020...it's stored right next to the Univac 3E.

The Univac needs some new 6L6-GT's and 12AU7's....

>>> Phil

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 05-30-2003, 07:37 PM:

Are my pictures working yet?
<<<

I guess not

Josh

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 07:45 PM:

Yeah! And what about all my pictures? AND Rachel's?

GEEZE! Yous sure are slow getting it all together!

>>> Phil

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-30-2003, 07:56 PM:

I sent Brad a new picture like 29375204398302948 times!!!! He's sooooo slow!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2003, 08:57 PM:

Close enough to Saturday and I don't believe in e-mailing directly so here goes:

Josh's and Paul's pics don't work. I like this best out of all the new features that the new servers offer. Now I don't have to look at them anymore! Woo hoo! But whenever I enter a thread where one of them has posted, I get a pop-up error (IE for Mac) since the CGI script isn't working. No big deal. But I still demand it be fixed before I am done typing this.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-30-2003, 09:03 PM:

The new servers are awesome, nothing beats Windows!!! [Roll Eyes]

Windows and THX RULE THE WORLD!!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-30-2003, 09:28 PM:

We could reinitiate your rotating picture script if you like Joe. In fact, if you want, I could reinitiate your rotating pictures beside Rachel's posts. [Big Grin]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 09:34 PM:

That would be cool Brad. As a matter of fact, I think you should rotate and intermix Joe's, Rachel's, Paul's, Josh's and my pics with eachother...that way no one will be able to know who to yell at or who's slamming whom.

>>> Phil

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-30-2003, 09:44 PM:

I'm assuming you guys are saying that Joe looks like a female because I sure as hell DO NOT look like a guy!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 09:47 PM:

You STILL haven't explained what all those bubbles are from.... Is that a bath pic?

>>> Phil

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-30-2003, 09:59 PM:

Sorry, I had gas that day...

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2003, 10:02 PM:

Hahahahaha...yeah, that's what we all figured. I just wanted to hear you admit it! [evil]

>>> Phil

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 05-31-2003, 12:14 PM:

Brad, that'd be cool if you put the rotating script thing up again [Smile]

Josh

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-01-2003, 04:59 AM:

quote:
Brad, that'd be cool if you put the rotating script thing up again

Soon come, soon come. I need to add two (yes two!) lines to the image scripts. I'll do it tonight when I'm actually awake.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-01-2003, 12:06 PM:

Vi is not all that bad, so there! I use it on occasion and don't mind it. Of course if I am doing a big project I grab the file, edit it with something else and send it back, or edit it in console mode using a graphical editor or something.

I think Linux blows windows out of the water as a server. I have had constant uptime for over a year with no problems. I am not ready to say I would use it full-time as a workstation yet, but I have not checked out Mandrake 9 yet. Of course if you are one of those techno-weenies that has to have the latest and greatest hardware you can sometimes find new gadgets that aren't supported yet, but usually not a problem. There are also less viruses and server eaters out there for Linux than there are for Windows, and a lot of cool little toys to play with!

-- edit --

On further thought, if you guys were really motivated you could figure out how to grab my static webcam image that is updated every 30 seconds and use that for my forum image, but except for a couple of hours a day all you're going to see is a bookshelf!

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-01-2003, 02:28 PM:

I've got an NT4 server and a FreeBSD server that both have not been rebooted in over three years. When configured correctly, and securely, pretty much any decent Network OS can be made reliable.

Besides, porting all your applications so that they run properly under Win32 is soooo much fun. [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-01-2003, 02:42 PM:

Daryl--let me guess...that NT4 server has been powered down for the last three years.

Never mind that installing any type of patch on Win32 requires rebooting the damn thing.

My desktop Solaris box has _never_ crashed and currently has an uptime of 324 days. The last reboot was to install a UPS.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2003, 04:13 PM:

This is almost as fun as watching a platter vs. changeover argument. Here we have Scott the old timer who just cannot give up his old ways because it is better. Yes better, superior, it's the way it has always been, tried and true, guaranteed, oh hell yeah, don't you even think about challenging it. Then we have Daryl who is daring enough to check out new technology and has found ways around the limitations of said new technology all the while benefiting from the various ways the new technology is better. [Smile]

Seriously, if anything goes wrong with the new server, I can Ghost the drive in less than 10 minutes and be right back online with zero effort. [thumbsup]

What happens when the UNIX box went down? Let's hope Scott is home and he can somehow fix it remotely! I'm not saying Windows is a superior operating system, but in this case it makes no sense to go UNIX. Scott (and possibly John Hawkinson) are the only people I know who will even touch it.

And Scott, VI still sucks. I could operate a mouse with my foot and still get the job done twice as fast. Let's all start the "Scott needs a Windows computer fund". Any donations?

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 05:23 PM:

quote:
On further thought, if you guys were really motivated you could figure out how to grab my static webcam image that is updated every 30 seconds and use that for my forum image, but except for a couple of hours a day all you're going to see is a bookshelf!

That wouldn't work too well because in about 2 weeks you'd get my face under your name when I use your computer... [evil]

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-01-2003, 05:24 PM:

Scott - that's the last time I had mine down too.... To install the UPS...

Oh, on the subject of Rachel's bubbles... Hasn't anyone noticed how much of a bubbly personality she has?? It's true! Even though those particular bubbles were especially noxious.... [Smile]

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 05:31 PM:

Thanks...

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 06-01-2003, 05:32 PM:

I luuuuuvvvvvv yooouuuuu [Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 06:17 PM:

My server's name is Jeeves.

I vote the BBS powers start a new catogory called: Don & Rachels Love Fest.

>>> Phil

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-01-2003, 07:22 PM:

I luuuuuvvvvvv yooouuuuu tooooooo! [Smile]

Well, go ahead then Phil! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-01-2003, 07:35 PM:

Of course I run Unix servers, Brad. I'm sure there are others here, too [Smile]

[maybe Evans?]

As for vi -- it's hard to fathom this as your breaking point with Unix. The traditional Unix rivalry is between vi and Emacs. Certainly I use Emacs far more than vi (though I do use vi on occasion), and it's far and away more advanced and superior. If you haven't used emacs, you haven't lived [Smile]

--jhawk

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-01-2003, 11:23 PM:

Emacs. [thumbsup]

I use UNIX too but I really don't like playing around too much with servers other people set up.

Now if only somebody would donate ANY (working or not) DTS processor that we could run Novell on for a chat server, I'd be one happy guy. [Smile]

Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 06-01-2003, 11:42 PM:

my file server runs a BSD-derivative and has been rock solid. A couple of video servers I used to run were NT4 based, and they were not bad - about 4 weeks between reboots was the record, but thats because I had stripped out most of the non-essential components.

As to Vi, its fine for hacking config files but I wouldnt want to write War and Peace on it. I'd use WordStar for CP/M for that. [Wink]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-02-2003, 12:19 AM:

Emacs? Ha! ed is the standard text editor !

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-02-2003, 02:12 AM:

Yes John, VI was the breaking point for me. I guess you now make 2 people that I know of who actually like that stupid thing.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-02-2003, 11:49 AM:

In all seriousness, I'd much rather run a Novell server farm than any other OS, at least for core file & print services. It works, it's flexible, things aren't hidden behind layers of obfuscation. Having said that, my experience with NT4 (SP6A) and Windows 2000 Server is they are extremely stable. I'm learning Linux, am impressed in some ways and not so impressed in others.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-02-2003, 12:34 PM:

I totally agree Dave. Novell is my first choice for any mid to large scale network. ZenWorks makes life so easy. [thumbsup]

Of course you also get to run on top of DR. DOS! What more can you ask for!? [Smile]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-02-2003, 05:07 PM:

The last time I touched Novell was around the time of the transition from 3.x to 4.x. I will give them credit for having a stable product for simple file service and for having the most robust print queueing service that I have ever dealt with. I think I remember only one time when a busy print queue got itself wedged. By comprison, Unix's lpd blows goats (though Solaris's lp seems to have gotten significantly better starting with 2.8). Though printing on Windows NT (2000, etc.) is even worse.

Now, though, I think that Samba on Unix (preferably Solaris) would be my choice for file service to Win32 machines in a medium-size network if something like a Network Appliance box with a CIFS license is out of the question. Being a proprietary, single-vendor product, I'm not really sure where Novell's file and print service software fits in the current marketplace.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-02-2003, 08:20 PM:

I never ran DR-DOS on my Novell servers. Always MS-DOS, v6.22 if possible, never had a problem with it. Novell Directory Services is WAY more admin-friendly than Active Directory - give me NDS any day. The ability to load and unload server NLMs on-the-fly most of the time means very rarely having to reboot when upgrading drivers etc. If I do lose a volume due to hardware failure, I'd sure as hell rather restore a NetWare volume from scratch than Windows. NetWare rocks for core file & print services. I actually miss working with it.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-02-2003, 08:48 PM:

Yay Novell! We have about 25 Novell servers here. The only problems that crop up are hardware related. We also have about 5 Linux servers here running web/mysql stuff. Same deal. We have one Windows 2000 server who's only job in life is to look at incoming email for viruses and spam and such, and we have to reboot it about once a month... just because. Brad, I hope you worked an automated monthly reboot into the system!

For the rest of you Novell / Linux geeks out there, you will be interested to know that Netware 7.x will be geared towards Linux in a major way. Click Here

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-02-2003, 11:06 PM:

Well, Brad, if you haven't tried Emacs, you should seriously do so. You can even try it out under Windows if you really want to; get it from ftp.gnu.org.

Yes, Scott, we all know ed is the standard text editor. It's a somewhat specialized meaning of standard, kind of like "lowest common denominator." Do you know anyone who uses ed for any serious tasks other than cripped single user mode work? I think I'll go back to TECO...

--jhawk

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-03-2003, 08:29 AM:

quote:
I could operate a mouse with my foot and still get the job done twice as fast.

Something about that just seems surreal.